01
Volume arrives in waves
Three NIW clients sign in the same fortnight and the calendar has no room for any of them. Hiring for the peak leaves you carrying the trough.
For US immigration law firms
EB-1A and EB-2 NIW petition drafting for attorneys.
Attorney-ready petition drafts, evidence matrices, exhibit indexes, supporting letters and RFE responses, prepared by India-qualified lawyers in your format for your review and signature.
100+EB-1 and EB-2 petitions written by the team
30+Approvals reported to date, balance in process
8 CFR204.5(h)(3), argued criterion by criterion
Approvals are the client’s and the attorney of record’s outcome, not a promise from us. No one can guarantee a petition result. How we count
Deliverables
Every claim mapped. Every handoff controlled.
What arrives on your desk, built so your attorney can review the argument against the record without rebuilding either.
EB-1A
Petition letter for Extraordinary Ability, argued criterion by criterion against 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3), with the final merits determination drafted as its own section.
Core practice
EB-2 NIW
National Interest Waiver petition letter structured on the three Matter of Dhanasar prongs, with the proposed endeavor stated precisely.
Core practice
I-140
Support for the immigrant petition and the cover letter that frames the argument for the officer reading it.
Every matter
RFE
Analysis of what the officer actually challenged, then a response built around that gap rather than a restatement of the original filing.
On request
Letters
Recommendation, expert and support letters, employment verification letters, and statements of proposed endeavor or intent, for the signatory to review and approve.
Supporting
Record
Evidence matrix mapping each exhibit to what it proves, exhibit index with cross-references, and citation and record verification.
Every matter
Matter map
Petitions built criterion by criterion.
Each exhibit is mapped to the criterion it proves before the argument is drafted, and every judgment call is left for your attorney. Shown with placeholder content; client matters stay confidential.
Matter map · EB-1A
Illustrative
- Original contributions of major significanceMappedExhibits 4, 7 and 12.
- Leading or critical roleMappedExhibits 2 and 9.
- Authorship of scholarly articlesMappedExhibits 14 to 21.
- Judging the work of othersFlaggedExhibit 23, with an open issue for the attorney.
- Evidence
- Criteria
- Citations
- Draft
- Quality check
- Attorney review
From evidence to argument, nothing gets lost.
| Criterion | Exhibits | Argued at | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original contributions of major significance | Ex 4, 7, 12 | Section III.A | Mapped |
| Leading or critical role | Ex 2, 9 | Section III.B | Mapped |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | Ex 14–21 | Section III.C | Mapped |
| Judging the work of others | Ex 23 | Section III.D | Issue: undated invitation |
| Final merits determination | All of the above | Section IV | Drafted |
- Deliverables
- Petition letter draft, evidence matrix, exhibit index and an open-issue list.
- Attorney handoff
- Your attorney reviews the flagged issues, makes the judgment calls, revises, adopts and signs.
Two different legal tests
EB-1A criteria are not NIW prongs, so the drafts are built differently.
How we structure each petition type. Strategy, criterion selection and every legal judgment remain your attorney’s.
EB-1A: criterion by criterion
The petition must evidence at least three of the ten regulatory criteria in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3), or a one-time major internationally recognised award, and then survive a final merits determination of sustained acclaim. We draft each claimed criterion as its own argument with its own exhibits, then the final merits section on top.
- Lesser nationally or internationally recognised prizes or awards
- Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
- Published material about the beneficiary
- Judging the work of others
- Original contributions of major significance
- Authorship of scholarly articles
- Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases
- Leading or critical role for distinguished organisations
- High salary or remuneration
- Commercial success in the performing arts
EB-2 NIW: the three Dhanasar prongs
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), replaced the earlier framework with three prongs. The draft is organised around them, with the proposed endeavor defined first because every prong depends on it.
- Prong 1
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance
- Prong 2
- The beneficiary is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
- Prong 3
- On balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements
Inputs, decisions, outputs
Who supplies what, and who decides.
What we need
From your firm
- The beneficiary’s CV and available evidence
- Your template and drafting instructions
- The filing window and any fixed dates
- Sent after NDA, through your secure route
What you decide
Your attorney
- Which criteria or prongs to argue
- How to treat thin or late evidence
- Every item on our issue list
- Final text, signature and filing
What we deliver
Lexverse
- Petition draft in your template
- Evidence matrix and exhibit index
- Issue list of the judgment calls we flag
- One revision round as standard
Quality check
Built for scrutiny. Delivered for review.
Before a draft leaves us, it is checked against the record it relies on.
- Every exhibit reference resolves to the right document
- Names, dates and figures match the record
- Regulatory, policy and case citations checked
- Your template and style instructions followed
- Open issues listed for your attorney, not buried
- Files named to your matter structure
Why immigration attorneys call us
The bottleneck is rarely strategy. It is the draft.
Immigration firms rarely lose time on judgment. They lose evenings on assembly: the exhibit index, the fifth recommendation letter, the RFE that lands in a week of hearings.
02
Evidence outruns the argument
Hundreds of pages of publications, citations and letters, and the real work is connecting each one to the criterion it proves without a broken cross-reference.
03
RFEs land at the worst time
The response has to re-argue the record inside the deadline, without contradicting a word of the original filing.
Who does this work
Named people on every petition.
You will know who is drafting your file. Meet the full team.
Scope boundaries
Work for the attorney, never around them.
We do
- Draft petitions, letters and RFE responses for your review
- Map and index the evidence
- Flag weak or missing evidence early
- Work inside your template and systems
We do not
- Advise or contact petitioners unless you ask us to
- Appear before USCIS or sign anything
- Guarantee or predict approvals
- Market to anyone you introduce us to
Next step
Discuss petition capacity.
Tell us the petition types, likely volume and filing windows. We reply with the questions needed to scope it, before any client file changes hands.